GOP Plays Politics with the New START Treaty

The Senate’s top two Republicans announced their opposition to the New START nuclear treaty with Russia this weekend, putting into question the fate of President Obama’s top national security priority for the close of his first term.

Despite their opposition the treaty appears to be on a path to approval.

The treaty calls for the resumption of nuclear controls that until now have had bipartisan support.

Minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Jon Kyl of Arizona took to the Sunday chat shows, arguing that Democrats were trying to push the treaty through too hastily.

“Rushing it right before Christmas, it strikes me as trying to jam us,” said McConnell on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Some Senate Republicans have signaled that they may vote for the treaty and the White House has been working furiously to win over the nine Republicans needed to ratify the agreement, but the NY Times notes that a “sour mood” has spread through Capitol Hill’s Republican ranks after the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” on Saturday. One GOP Senator whom Democrats had hoped would support the treaty, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the lame duck session had been “poisoned” and that advocates of the treaty should “start over and do it in the next Congress.”

The Senator is full of crap. The bottom line is simple and he knows it: The prospect of President Obama achieving another victory in the lame-duck session is not exactly on the top of the GOP Christmas list.

The conservatives are whining that about hastiness? We’ve had eight months, 17 committee hearings and over a thousand questions asked about this treaty –a treaty that’s only 17 pages long. Seventeen pages that have been on both McConnell and Kyle’s desks for most of 2010, and now they’re arguing that Democrats were trying to push the treaty through too hastily.

They haven’t read it? If they haven’t read it yet, maybe they need to be fired. They aren’t doing even the most basic functions of their jobs.

The only thing they have against this treaty is that it will be another victory for Obama. There is no valid reason to oppose this treaty other than to try and make Obama look ineffectual.

If you doubted that Republicans could be so craven as to put their own political interests above national security, there’s your proof.

Who would’ve thought that the party whose ideology is supposedly rooted in national security is now holding our nuclear security hostage solely to weaken or embarrass the president? Public-spirited Republicans should demand that the treaty move forward as planned.

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) is a consensus document. Obama went to great lengths to win the support of the military, the State Department and a broad range of Republicans and Democrats.

Anyone who thinks there’s something wrong with this treaty needs to take it up with people who know far more than you and certainly who know far more than elected officials whose best skill is playing politics.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice supports the treaty. So do other prominent Republicans including George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, James Baker and Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly backs it. The chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, has said, “I believe — and the rest of the military leadership in this country believes — that this treaty is essential to our future security.”

You oppose the treaty? Ask those experts why they support it. Then ask yourself why their word isn’t good enough for you.

The treaty would require that Russia and the United States cut back on nuclear arsenals and would allow the United States to resume inspecting Russia’s nuclear facilities, a right that lapsed last December for the first time since the Cold War. Does anyone really want Russia shuffling its nuclear weapons around without inspections? Even a year’s gap has put us in greater danger of materials falling into the wrong hands.

The intrusion of partisan politics into national security is a break with tradition. The opposition party in Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has long set politics aside so that the country could present a united front to other nations. Lacking trust, we will have fewer allies and partners. Does anyone really think we can go it alone in today’s world?

Obama went to extraordinary lengths to iron out areas of disagreement with Kyl, knowing two-thirds of senators must approve the treaty. The president had no fewer than 29 meetings, phone calls or exchanges with the Arizona senator and his staff, White House documents show. The sticking point seemed to be Kyl’s sense that the United States needs to go to greater lengths to modernize its nuclear arsenal (at the expense of the deficit). So the president offered to add $80 billion to the budget for that purpose.

So how did Kyl respond? He disrespectfully blindsided the president last month, timing the announcement of his opposition to embarrass Obama just before he left for Portugal for a NATO summit.

Kyl is taking his marching orders from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who openly proclaims that Republicans’ top priority for the next two years is to defeat Obama.

If this isn’t a clear demonstration of putting the quest for party power ahead of the good of the country, what is?

http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-national/gop-shamelessly-plays-politics-with-the-new-start-treaty

Is this the Swindle of the Year?

This is the season for scare tactics.

Charles Krauthammer, writing in the Washington Post, says “In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package.”  He contends that the deal Obama made with one trillion borrowed dollars put into the economy and that will be the boost that will result in his re-election.  It just happens that the liberals of the Democratic party don’t get it.

Mr. Krauthammer’s view is definitely unique.  Perhaps this view will result in many Republicans from voting for the tax plan.  I will not be surprised if Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity jump on the Krauthammer theory. 

Meanwhile Lawrence Summers, the president’s chief financial advisor, has said that without this tax package the United States has a considerable chance of falling back into a recession.  The highly respected Bill Clinton appearing at the White House is most likely the winning card for Obama.

If the Tea Party is true to their values they will oppose extending these reduced taxes.  I agree with that position.  However the problem is the Obama agreement includes extended unemployment benefits, something I support.   If all the leaders were around the table we could reach a compromise. We need a No Labels solution to Washington gridlock.

The U.S. National Debt is $13.8 Trillion!

U. S. Treasury Department report to Congress: U.S debt to rise to $19.6 trillion by 2015.

Despite these unpleasant facts our government continues to spend as if it has extra money in the bank.

  • On Sept. 30, 2009, public debt subject to the limit totaled $11.9 trillion with a $12.4 trillion debt ceiling.
  • Last February, Congress raised the ceiling on the national debt from $12.4 trillion to $14.2 trillion.
  • Since then, the debt has risen to $13.8 trillion — which means Congress will have to raise it yet again within a few months.
  • Extension of the Bush tax cuts will add $900 Billion to the national debt (reported by the Assoicated Press).
  •  

I hate to be Mr. Scrooge just before Christmas but the national debt is $13.8 Trillion.  To avoid a government shutdown Congress will have to raise the current debt limit of $14.2 trillion within a few months.  Continuing Bush tax cuts will add to the amount we borrow from China and the rest of the world.  Currently the U.S. government borrows more than one-third of the money it spends.  America appears to be following the path of Greece and Ireland.

Barack Obama’s deal with the G.O.P. proves that neither political party is really interested in reducing the spending by the Federal government.
Visualizing Obama’s budget cuts.
This really puts it in perspective!
A student explains 100 Million Dollar Budget Cut

Trust me, you have to watch this one and I promise you’ll end up smarter in just a minute and thirty-eight seconds.

Recently Obama announced that over the next 90-days he is going to work to cut 100-Million dollars of spending out of the Federal Budget. 

 university student explains.

VERY well done! 

 http://wimp.com/budgetcuts/ 

Elizabeth Edwards, Rest in Peace

Foolishly, I was a supporter of John Edwards.  This column was posted by Melinda Henneberger on Politics Daily.  You need to read this article to the end. 

 The most disarming, beloved and beleaguered woman in the American political arena died of cancer Tuesday, at age 61, at the Chapel Hill estate that Mary Elizabeth Anania Edwards once told me she’d built in part to compensate for the succession of modest homes she’d lived in as a Navy brat.

“From years of living in military housing, I like a big room,” the wife of then-presidential hopeful John Edwards said in an interview in front of her hotel lobby-sized Christmas tree three years ago. Because some of the bedrooms she’d had as a kid were so dinky you couldn’t fit the bed in and still close the door, “my dream was to turn in circles if you wanted to.” The 28,000-square-foot result was just one of the ambitions Elizabeth willed to life, brick by brick, along with a few heartfelt myths and the clear understanding that she did not want to be remembered as anybody’s cuckold, or some modern-day female Job.

Before their 16-year-old son Wade’s jeep was blown off the road in a freak storm in 1996, John and Elizabeth “had the storybook life and the storybook marriage,” his former law partner David Kirby told me as Edwards was preparing for his second presidential run. But like most pre-Disney fairy tales, it also included some dark and confusing turns in the woods. On the campaign trail, Edwards’ favorite fallback phrase was, “It’s not complicated!” — but the years they lived in public certainly were. For most of us, her story really only began on the worst day of her life, when the state troopers came to the door to say Wade had been killed and she promised herself that if her husband ever had to hear bad news again, it wouldn’t be from her. I’ve often wondered if any of what followed — his political career, the birth of his two younger children, her breast cancer, which was advanced even when she discovered an egg-sized lump six years ago, and his affair with Rielle Hunter, who bore him a daughter — would ever have happened if Wade had stopped for a Coke instead of being where he was, when he was.

But Elizabeth wouldn’t want me to start there, so I’ll begin where she often did, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law, where she was the smartest girl in school — to the point of showing up the scariest professor on the first day of class. (When she knew answers others didn’t, he tried to shame them, but she answered that maybe if he’d write something comprehensible on the board, they’d catch on.) That’s when Edwards fell for her, he has always said, but she was not so sure that she wanted to go out with him; he was four years younger, not much of a reader, while she loved Henry James, and he came from a tiny town, while she had lived all over the world. When he finally did win her over, after their first dance under a disco ball at the Holiday Inn, it was when he kissed her goodnight on the forehead.

They married the Saturday after taking the bar exam, and she did some lawyering even while mothering their older children, Cate and Wade, to such extremes that she was forever taking on projects like growing an outfit made of grass for Wade’s Halloween costume or making Snickerdoodles for the entire neighborhood. After Wade’s death, she never went back to her office, even to pick up her things, which she sent for, and turned her attention to “parenting Wade’s memory,” as she called it, by opening a learning lab in his honor.

Because parenting was the thing that truly made the couple happiest, she always said, they were determined to have more children, and she gave birth to Emma Claire when she was 48 and Jack when she was 50. When John was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1998 and then became John Kerry’s vice presidential running mate in ’04, Elizabeth was not only at his side every step of the way but was widely seen as his greatest asset — proof of the depth some doubted — with an Everywoman appeal and policy chops that exceeded her husband’s. Behind the scenes, she could be hard on staff, and was far more protective of her husband’s image than he ever was — even suggesting at one point in the ’08 campaign that he introduce “Dr. Strangelove” as his favorite movie even though he’d never seen the film, because she thought it struck just the right anti-war message.

Traveling with her in ’04 in California as a reporter for Newsweek, along with just one young aide, I remember her hoisting her own bag into the overhead bin and apologizing for sitting in First Class; she needed the extra room because of poor circulation, she said. In the car between events, she told great stories, many of them of the mom-to-mom variety, yet chock-a-block with literary references. At the same time, though, she did not even try to hide her intensity about making sure she was doing absolutely everything she could for the Kerry-Edwards team.

At campaign stops, she frequently quoted a few verses from “The Cure at Troy” by Seamus Heaney:
Human beings suffer,
They torture one another,
They get hurt and get hard.
No poem or play or song
Can fully right a wrong
Inflicted and endured.
The innocent in gaols
Beat on their bars together.
A hunger-striker’s father
Stands in the graveyard dumb.
The police widow in veils
Faints at the funeral home.
History says, don’t hope
On this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up,
And hope and history rhyme.

The poem had particular resonance because the couple’s personal loss was so entwined with his political plans, in her mind in particular. Her considerable drive, many of us who covered them thought, was in large part about extending Wade’s influence — in a sense, keeping him alive — through the public service that the couple always said Wade had urged his father to pursue.

Never in modern politics — not Hillary in 1992, not Michelle Obama in 2008 — has a spouse been more central to a presidential campaign than Elizabeth Edwards was in 2004. All big decisions were made in the living room of the D.C. home they were renting while their “dream home” in Georgetown was getting an upgrade. Whether it was interviewing top staffers or working out spending priorities for the primaries, Elizabeth was on the case. She was also an early adapter of the Internet in politics, and as a bit of an insomniac, would troll user-groups on the Web — which wasn’t usual back in 2002 — looking for all discussions of John Edwards.

On caucus night in Iowa in ’04, Edwards, with almost no organization, almost defeated John Kerry, losing by 38 percent to 32 percent, and for a minute it seemed like anything was possible. But of course, as it turned out, this and the vice-presidential nomination night in Boston that summer were the high points of Elizabeth’s political dreams for her husband.

At the very end of the ’04 campaign — 12 days before Election Day — Elizabeth was in the shower when she discovered a lump so large she called the friend who was traveling with her into the bathroom to feel it, too; it couldn’t be anything, right?

What she did not do, however, was tell her husband, who she worried might take it too hard, or else get distracted. In fact, he didn’t hear about it until more than a week later. How on earth had she managed that, anyway, I asked her in ’07, while reporting a story for Slate. Had she learned along the way that denial is not all bad? Yes, she answered, and repeated what I’d said back to me, but with a look I couldn’t quite make out.

As long as she didn’t tell John, she added, even she didn’t have to let what was happening sink in. And if he didn’t know it, how real could it really be? “I kept myself from thinking about it, too. … I thought I was going to be fine, even when I was in the doctor’s office” and he was telling her otherwise.

As long as she didn’t tell John, she added, even she didn’t have to let what was happening sink in. And if he didn’t know it, how real could it really be? “I kept myself from thinking about it, too. … I thought I was going to be fine, even when I was in the doctor’s office” and he was telling her otherwise.

In the acknowledgments of his ’04 campaign book, “Four Trials,” John Edwards wrote, “Finally, my thanks to my wife, Elizabeth. I have spent many years trying to live up to what she believed I could be, and I am the better for it. This book and this life would not have been possible without her.”

In the acknowledgments of his ’04 campaign book, “Four Trials,” John Edwards wrote, “Finally, my thanks to my wife, Elizabeth. I have spent many years trying to live up to what she believed I could be, and I am the better for it. This book and this life would not have been possible without her.”

She was less involved in the campaign in ’08, and my colleague Walter Shapiro says that the rawest and most wrenching public moment he can remember in politics occurred in a high school gym in Davenport, Iowa, in early April 2007 just after she returned to the campaign trail after learning that her breast cancer had returned. Because of the outpouring of sympathy for Elizabeth after the news — and the drama surrounding John Edwards continuing the race — their joint appearance in Davenport attracted more than 500 people to a lunchtime rally.

As they both took questions afterward, Elizabeth was asked about the need for more public education about mammograms, and as she answered, the gym was stunned into complete silence: “It had a chance to migrate because I sat at home doing whatever I thought was important and didn’t get mammograms. … I do not have to be in this situation. I am responsible for putting myself, this man” — here she gestured towards her husband — “my family and, frankly, all of you at risk, too. Because I think you deserve to vote for this man.”

What she was saying — and everybody there understood the implicit message — was: I am going to die before my children get to high school because I didn’t get a mammogram. But I refuse to allow my own negligence to prevent you from voting for this good man for president.

Of course, Elizabeth Edwards was not married to the classic definition of a good man, and a grand jury in Raleigh, N.C., is continuing its investigation into Edwards and his financial transactions back to the ’04 campaign. But in a June interview on NBC’s “Today” show, Elizabeth said that though they’d separated, she certainly didn’t regret her marriage, and still believed that she had married a wonderful guy who changed over time. “Maybe we all do,” she said. In July, the former couple and their children traveled together to Japan, where she’d lived as a child.

The last time I laid eyes on Elizabeth, three years ago this month, she threw her arms around me and said, by way of greeting, “I wish my makeup looked like that.” (I wasn’t wearing any.) Then she plopped down on the couch, drew her knees up to her chin the way she always did, and, though she knew at least some of the details of her husband’s affair at the time, tried to sell me, and perhaps even herself, on honesty as his finest trait, and the reason she knew he’d make a wonderful president. No one ever had a better partner.

And for all of the now well-known turns in their relationship — his infidelity, and her understandable anger — no one who knew her could have been surprised to hear that John was with her and their children at the end, or doubt that she would want the telling of her story to end as happily as possible.

A statement her family put out this afternoon said: “Today we have lost the comfort of Elizabeth’s presence but she remains the heart of this family. We love her and will never know anyone more inspiring or full of life. On behalf of Elizabeth we want to express our gratitude to the thousands of kindred spirits who moved and inspired her along the way. Your support and prayers touched our entire family.”

On her Facebook page just now, a friend wrote that she just knew that Wade had been waiting for her with open arms.

Conservative commentator David Brooks reveals his problem with Republicans

New York Times columnist David Brooks debated Republican Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) at an American Enterprise Institute forum Thursday and, amid a large degree of back-patting, the writer came to the conclusion that the GOP, in its current legislative form, is exhibiting a sort of obstinate “rigidity” that is damaging to the political process.

Here’s what Brooks had to say about the current debate over deficit control by cutting taxes and spending (transcript via ThinkProgress):

 
BROOKS: And my problem with the Republican Party right now, including Paul, is that if you offered them 80-20, they say no. If you offered them 90-10, they’d say no. If you offered them 99-1 they’d say no. And that’s because we’ve substituted governance for brokerism, for rigidity that Ronald Regan didn’t have.
And to me, this rigidity comes from this polarizing world view that they’re a bunch of socialists over there. You know, again, I’ve spent a lot of time with the president. I’ve spent a lot of time with the people around him. They’re liberals! … But they’re not idiots. And they’re not Europeans, and they don’t want to be a European welfare state. … It’s American liberalism, and it’s not inflexible. 

 

Brooks also explained his vision of the Democrats’ ideology.

“They have much greater faith in planning than I do, and the health care plan that came out of that, it reflected their faith in planning that bunch of smart guys sitting around in Washington can plan the health care system in this country,” Brooks said. “They want to have — if you read what they’ve written for the past 20 years — a more actively planned society which does a little more redistribution.”

David is really a moderate.  That will probably make him persona non grata at all future American Enterprise Institute forums.  That is the problem with both political parties.  Neither can handle disagreement with their primary view.

Unemployed, and Likely to Stay That Way

The official unemployment rate has been above 9% starting in May 2009.  This last month’s rate was at 9.8%.  Most people say that the real unemployment rate is 18%.

The longer people stay out of work, the more trouble they have finding new work.  Recently 60 Minutes featured a story of people in Silicon Valley (that is the San Jose California area) that have been out of work for 99 weeks or are approaching that number.  All had at least a Bachelors degree and many had advanced degrees.  They were at least 40 years old.  Over 40 percent of the unemployed — more than 6 million Americans — have been out of work for than six months or longer, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

At the age of 60 I landed the best job of my life.  The president of the company asked me in an interview if I had any grandchildren.  I thought hum what kind of question is this.  I answered “NO”, which is still an accurate answer, but in my mind I thought this is one job I am not going to get.

I was fortunate that time but obtaining that job occurred after 15 months of unemployment.  The fact is that there is age discrimination. Many older people will either take a much lower paying job or they will remain unemployed indefinitely.  The United States has now created a new class of people and no one knows how to prevent them from standing in bread lines.  This is a sad tale for what was the world’s economic power house.

Based upon what I have heard and read, no one knows how to fix this problem.

Perhaps the Republicans do know how to solve this problem.  Clearly the Democrats do not.  If the economy does not improve significantly by November 2012, I will not be voting for Barack Obama and it is a good bet that most of America won’t either.

Land of the Free, Home of the Greedy

 John Kyle takes a stand

Perhaps the title of this piece should be “Land of the Free, Home of the Politician.” The United States is in a manner of speaking killing The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg. Our problem is that too many people want to kill the goose. The moral of the story is Too much greed results in nothing.

Today all Republican members of the Senate have signed a letter saying they will block virtually all legislation until expiring tax cuts are extended and a bill is passed to fund the federal government. Essentially they have decided to shut down the legislative branch of government.

Our problem is a large portion of the elected officials want to destroy the system that was created in 1789 because politics are more important than success of the nation.

A deficit commission has prescribed the medicine that we must feed the goose. The greedy, and they are in both political parties, have lost sight of protecting this nation.

Palin Shuld be Prezident

She iz smart, and we layk her. She is just layk yu and me. She makes good joke all the time and we layk her. Pliz dont be min to her. Sam time she make mistake but everione duz, so we need to help her. If america does not vote for her prezident, then canada shud make Palin prezident of canada so she can teech us mani things. Posted by Robsden on the Toronto Star web site. 

Palin is famously no stranger to foreign policy blunders, having been quoted in 2008 as saying Alaska is ‘right over the border from Russia’.

 From the Daily Mail in the UK: She could run for president in 2012 but Sarah Palin may want to brush up on her geography after confusing a major US adversary for an ally.

Speaking to CNN’s Larry King alongside her husband George HW Bush, Barbara Bush appeared to advise Palin to stay out of national politics. ‘I sat next to her once. Thought she was beautiful,’ Mrs Bush said. ‘And she’s very happy in Alaska, and I hope she’ll stay there.’

Palin claimed Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity showed she ‘cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat’.

From mediaite.com

The scrambled tongue moment–as that’s surely what Palin will say it was–does bring up a charge made in John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s book, Game Change, which portrays Palin as dangerously uninformed–a candidate for the vice presidency who didn’t understand that Korea was divided. A quote from that book:

“She knew nothing. She had to be taken through World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and Palin was not aware there was a difference between North and South Korea. She continued to insist that Iraq was behind 9/11; and when her son was being sent off to Iraq, she couldn’t describe who we were fighting.”

Has DWTS Gotten Too Political?

DWTS is shorthand for Dancing with the Stars.  Sadly it appears that there is something happening when Brandy, who was either the number one or number two dancer this season, was eliminated last week.  I have been a fan of this program since its inception but that was a miscarriage of honest judgment. 

In the last season there was Kelly Osbourne.  She was not graceful but she is the daughter of a famous father.  She made it into the finals.  What was that all about?  Just maybe the decision had to do with ratings.

If Bristol Palin wins I won’t be watching any more.

Sticking it to the Unemployed

The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for denying extension of jobless benefits.  They believe extending Bush tax cuts to millionaires is appropriate but too bad for the unemployed.  Their idea of let them figure it out for themselves reminds me of that famous queen who said, “Let them eat cake.”  Is this the “second amendment moment” Sharron Angle was talking about?

Unemployment insurance runs out on Nov. 30 for 2 million jobless Americans.  There is no argument that this program is expensive but the consequence of this action will mean thousands of people with no place to turn except food pantries.   Yes, the extended benefits are costly – another year’s worth would cost about $65 Billion.  However, when it comes to helping the economy, unemployment benefits deliver far more bang for the buck than holding down the top marginal tax rates.